National and Provincial PPI Claim from 1988

elysiumxv

I have found paper work for my first mortgage dated September 1988 with National and Provincial ( Then changed to Abbey and now Santander )

The statement dated 1988 - 1994 show PPI taken out of the mortgage for this period which I believe i was mis sold.

I have recently been awarded a PPI reclaim from Santander from 1994 to March 2012 which is great. This would include the abbey years before Santander swallowed up the abbey, so they must have accepted liability for Abbey customers.

My questions are

1. Will a claim dating back to 1988 still be valid or out of time ?
2. If still possible would Santander be liable for this claim ?

Many thanks for any help.

di3004

elysiumxv wrote: »

I have found paper work for my first mortgage dated September 1988 with National and Provincial ( Then changed to Abbey and now Santander )

The statement dated 1988 - 1994 show PPI taken out of the mortgage for this period which I believe i was mis sold.

I have recently been awarded a PPI reclaim from Santander from 1994 to March 2012 which is great. This would include the abbey years before Santander swallowed up the abbey, so they must have accepted liability for Abbey customers.

My questions are

1. Will a claim dating back to 1988 still be valid or out of time ?
2. If still possible would Santander be liable for this claim ?

Many thanks for any help.

Hi there

There is no harm in giving it a go, and it does help that you have found paperwork.

I believe that Santander would be dealing with complaints via Abbey anyway, as they do with loan PPI.

If you don't try you will never know, good luck.

magpiecottage

Why do you believe it was missold?

elysiumxv

di3004 wrote: »

Hi there

There is no harm in giving it a go, and it does help that you have found paperwork.

I believe that Santander would be dealing with complaints via Abbey anyway, as they do with loan PPI.

If you don't try you will never know, good luck.

Will give it a go this week and see what they say.

elysiumxv

magpiecottage wrote: »

Why do you believe it was missold?

We can't remeber why we were sold the PPI. We think we had to have PPI to qualify for the endowmwnt plan as we remember

Not sure if it the right thing to pursue but I would of thought we should if we think we were not advised correctly at the time ?

magpiecottage

elysiumxv wrote: »

We can't remeber why we were sold the PPI. We think we had to have PPI to qualify for the endowmwnt plan as we remember

You would not have needed it for the endowment. You might have done for the mortgage because a number of mortgage deals made certain insurances a condition on the loan - but that does not mean it was missold.

Not sure if it the right thing to pursue but I would of thought we should if we think we were not advised correctly at the time ?

You have no evidence of a missale. Nor do you have any evidence that N&P actually sold you the arrangement rather than an independent broker.

What evidence do you have that you had PPI on the loan anyway? What do the statements actually say?

magpiecottage

di3004 wrote: »

There is no harm in giving it a go, and it does help that you have found paperwork.

Yes there is.

A false claim results in considerable expense for the lender - which in the end will be passed on to customers in charges.

elysiumxv

magpiecottage wrote: »

Yes there is.

A false claim results in considerable expense for the lender - which in the end will be passed on to customers in charges.

Why do you believe it is a false claim ?. It is all circumstantial. IE: We were not fully briefed regards the need for PPI at the time and were advised it was in our best interests, which is questionable to say the least and worth pursueing on this basis.

Insurance claimes have always been passed on to the customers since the whole concept of insurance was born

dunstonh

We can't remeber why we were sold the PPI. We think we had to have PPI to qualify for the endowmwnt plan as we remember

MPPI (or ASU as it would have been then) had nothing to do with endowments.

Not sure if it the right thing to pursue but I would of thought we should if we think we were not advised correctly at the time ?

You bought in 1988 and regulation started in 2005. Which rules do you believe were broken?

Why do you believe it is a false claim ?.

Your complaint, at the moment, appears to be fraudulent at worst or a try-it-on at best (and a try-it-on is basically fraudulent in many peoples opinion). You have said nothing that indicates any wrong doing.

We were not fully briefed regards the need for PPI at the time and were advised it was in our best interests

And what evidence do you have to support your recollection of a conversation that took place 24 years ago?

Insurance claimes have always been passed on to the customers since the whole concept of insurance was born

The insurer is not paying out on these though. The retailer of the product is.

magpiecottage

elysiumxv wrote: »

Why do you believe it is a false claim ?.

Because you have no evidence.

It is all circumstantial.

See.

I also fail to see what PPI premiums would be doing on your mortgage statement. They would be paid from your current account.

So I suspect what you have seen is something completely different.

We were not fully briefed regards the need for PPI at the time and were advised it was in our best interests, which is questionable to say the least and worth pursueing on this basis.

So what would you have done if you had lost your job and N&P/Abbey National had taken your home from you?

Insurance claimes have always been passed on to the customers since the whole concept of insurance was born

Yes but this is not an insurance claim. It is an unsubstantiated allegation of misselling.

dunstonh

I also fail to see what PPI premiums would be doing on your mortgage statement. They would be paid from your current account.

So I suspect what you have seen is something completely different.

I have seen some very old mortgage accounts take the household and ASU from the mortgage. They used a non interest charging sub account and was paid monthly. They havent done that on new borrowing for many years though. However, it doesnt have anything to do with a complaint as it wasnt front loaded and wasnt charge interest. It was just one d/d instead of several.